Kotaku has some statements from EA chief John Riccitiello about EA's ambitions of regaining the top spot in the first-person shooter market they feel Activision currently enjoys with the Call of Duty series. "I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but in the way that Activision sort of alternates sequels of Modern Warfare and Call of Duty and owns the leadership position in FPS [first-person-shooter], between Medal of Honor and Battlefield, I want it back," Riccitiello told them. "And we're going to get there with innovation and quality." He explains why, in a comment that suggest he actually plays these games:

I think the Infinity Ward guys are great. It's not about them being bad for us having to be great too. I'm a fan of a lot of our competitors' products. But if you've played Modern Warfare, and you've played the first one — and you've played the last Call of Duty — it's sort of starting to feel like they're making the same game again. And I personally think being able to control your vehicle as opposed to being able to ride on one [is good]. And I think there's something a little bit cool about taking a building out and getting the six guys in it. Personally, I get sort of a silly amount of pleasure out of it.

Again, I think some of us are confusing being the most popular with being the best. There is simply no way, in my mind, that MW2 is the best shooter, or honestly even ranks in the top 25, despite the fact that it is one of the fastest sellers ever.

Can anyone NOT working for Activision make that claim, based on the game itself and not on numbers, with a straight face?

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Thinking further on it Prez, I agree with you but it's impossible to qualitatively define the top first person shooter, so sales measurements are really the only worthwhile metric.

No, because by that logic a cheap family car would be better than a Lamborghini.

The simple answer is that there is no way to objectively prove which game is best. But given the sales figures and review scores I think it's safe to say that MW2 certainly isn't a bad game. Overrated? Almost certainly.

All I'm saying is that MW2 making lots of money doesn't prove much, other than that a lot of people like it.

Thinking further on it Prez, I agree with you but it's impossible to qualitatively define the top first person shooter, so sales measurements are really the only worthwhile metric. It sucks but that's how it is with the majority of entertainment in general.

wouldn't reliable pirated figures give you a better indication? i mean if you can't get someone to play your game for free en masse wouldn't it be a fairly sturdy way to distinguish the games that truly have staying power? doesn't cod4 still hold the record for pirated copies?

how many kids get mommy or daddy to buy their games for them? with that sort of influence being such a large factor in video game sales numbers, doesn't it null n void the numbers as a qualitative measurement? these kids are victims of shotty marketing, and what essentially boils down to keys being jangled in their faces convincing them to whine to their parents, how can this demographic be included and still be considered a reliable litmus test for quality?

GameInformer has a great issue this month. Top 200 games of all time. The first 100 or so give you a great idea of the last 20 or so years of gaming....and it is hard to disagree with much of the list.

All I'm saying is that MW2 making lots of money doesn't prove much, other than that a lot of people like it.

Thinking further on it Prez, I agree with you but it's impossible to qualitatively define the top first person shooter, so sales measurements are really the only worthwhile metric. It sucks but that's how it is with the majority of entertainment in general.

yeah HL here to - I still regulary check the Black Mesa Source page for updates whilst I have exactly zero intrest in the latest HD doom/quake remake.

Edit oh actually thinking back the 2 biggest "WOW" moments for me both came in Unreal - the (then) stunning castle level intro, and the first proper FPS fright when the lights when out as they introduced the Skari really do stick firmly in my mind.

Finally someone with some brains on this board. Instead of trying to whip out his penis like the rest of you one-inch peckers, he proposes a simple question that cuts to the heart of the matter. I salute you sir.

Instead, the majority of their games end up being shit because they didn't give their dev teams the time or the freedom to create the world that they wanted to create.

I'm not usually one to defend EA, but changes don't happen overnight, especially when most games take years to make. EA has made a lot of good changes in the last couple of years, released some pretty good new IP's and and are continuing to make more. You can only do so much at once. But in making these changes they are also getting criticized by the same people for laying staff off, closing studios, etc. to facilitate these changes. They simply can't win with everyone.

They hardly even continue supporting released games. You can't say that about Valve.

Depends on the game, they have supported most of their games lately post release. Do you recall the uproar over the lack of L4D1 post-release support (not that I agree with that)?

Personally I don't think EA is quite as bad as they were a few years ago, and appear to be continuing to improve. But I'm still very cautious what games of theirs I buy and usually wait awhile after release to get feedback...but that can be said of most games and game companies these days.